tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013-03-21:/blog/142942016-08-15T15:26:07ZMovable Type Enterprisetag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2016:/blog//14294.21844852016-08-15T15:19:07Z2016-08-15T15:26:07Z
As discussed in an earlier post, the release of Pokemon Go raised speculation about app security failures, including reports that the app's standard permissions released user's Google data and emails to the game's developers. While investigation did not reveal Pokemon Go to be more dangerous than other apps, it would be foolish to end the conversation about app security on that sigh of relief. Mobile Apps do not come without security risks to individuals, businesses, or even governments, and risks vary widely on different platforms and between different apps. If an employee's smartphone contains sensitive company data alongside gaming or productivity apps, there are very real risks to be aware of when trying to prevent security breaches.

Smartphone apps: what are the risks?

Most smartphone apps are not primarily out to steal data, just to make a profit. That objective can be accomplished through direct advertising within the app, such as banner ads, or through the sale of consumer data obtained through the app to other advertisers. Many apps use a hybrid of these two approaches, with the app targeting advertising based on the information it knows about the user from the data is it granted access to. Targeted advertising, while perhaps intrusive or distasteful to individuals, may not present much of a threat to your business. What this type of advertising does signal, however, is that a large quantity of data is being collected and stored by developers. Once that data is out in the world, the security protocols in place to protect it are out of your control. If sensitive data is collected by a mobile app, there is a risk that that data will get into the wrong hands, either because it is stored on an insecure server or transferred in an unsafe manner. In a world where sensitive business data can live alongside third-party apps in every employee's pocket, the risks associated with these apps multiplies.

In addition to concerns related to unsafe data collection methods, it is also possible that the app itself could be compromised. In July, CBS reported the following risks in conjunction with smartphone apps:

- Malware or spyware: one investigation showed that between 75 - 97% of Apple and Android apps were breached

- Access to smartphone cameras and microphones being used to transmit audio and visual data. One flashlight app even went as far as to access the microphone on users' phones, then transmit an encrypted data stream to a server in Beijing

Mobile apps have the potential to be a powerful tool for hackers, and while companies like Apple and Google have an economic incentive to keep their app stores as safe and free from these risks as possible, they cannot eliminate all risk.

Minimizing Risk

Fortunately, the risks associated with smartphone apps are not unavoidable, and conscientious security policies can go far to prevent security breaches. Employees using smartphone apps for entertainment and relaxation to supplement the business uses of the device may be unaware of the risks associated with these apps, however, so developing and enforcing policies to prevent breaches is of the utmost importance. In developing app policies for employee smartphone use, some recommendations from industryexperts include:

- Only downloading games and apps from official stores, such as Apple or Google Play. Third party stores are more likely to have fake, risky versions of popular apps that contain malware.

- Forbidding "jailbreaking" or "rooting," which are often completed intentionally by users to allow them administrative access to the device, but disable security protections and open devices up to attack

- Giving apps permission to access only data that is needed for the app's operation

- Keeping the app updated to the latest version, where security issues may be more likely to have been fixed. Similarly, requiring that platforms and operating systems be kept updated.

- Deleting any unused or unnecessary apps to minimize risk

Staying ahead of new technology and developing proactive policies to avoid a security breach will help keep your business' and clients' data safe. If you are looking to develop a comprehensive security and privacy plan, we can help. Our firm works in conjunction with IT professionals to create effective security plans for our clients to prevent security breaches. We can advise you on how to manage your risk and minimize liability through proper security procedures and data protection, including mobile app use.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2016:/blog//14294.21570012016-07-26T20:58:55Z2016-07-26T21:24:52Z
Pokémon Go, a free iPhone and Android gaming app, was released recently and promptly followed by a media frenzy. The app is built on Niantic Inc.'s "Real World Gaming Platform" and uses GPS technology to track users' locations and allow interaction between the virtual components of the app and real-world locations. Its initial release raised both safety and also privacy concerns about the use of users' Google data, including speculation that app developers could access the personal emails of players, but the concerns were shown to be overblown. Of course, any app that collects user data can carry security risks and may raise privacy concerns, but Pokémon Go does not appear to carry any unique risks.

The other area of Pokémon controversy is the real-life injuries reported in connection with the game. The interaction between the virtual world on the user's mobile device and the real world have been blamed for players walking, bicycling, or driving with their eyes on a screen instead of alert to potential hazards. Two San Diego men were found to have fallen down a cliff while playing the game, and a New York driver hit a tree while chasing Pokémon in his car. Now the internet is abuzz about a teenager who was hit by a car while crossing a street while distracted by the app, in part because of her mother's comments indicating that the game was to blame for her injuries.

In the litigation context, this raises the question: can game-makers be held liable for injuries resulting from users being distracted by the game?

Blaming manufacturers and developers for the actions of distracted users of their products is nothing new, and while we have not seen success yet in that type of litigation that does not mean that there will not be. Most likely, such litigation would come in the form of a products liability suit under a theory of liability for either failure to warn, or design defect.

Does an app maker have a duty to warn players that the game may be distracting?

In Connecticut, a duty to warn arises when hidden dangers may arise in the use of a product in the ordinary way, or if danger may arise from foreseeable misuse. A warning may be found to be necessary based on the likelihood that the product would cause the harm suffered by the plaintiff, the ability of the seller to anticipate that the expected user would be aware of the risks involved in using the product and the nature of the potential harm; and the technological feasibility and cost of warnings and instructions. This duty only applies to hidden dangers, however - not dangers that are obviously present.

Even assuming the game manufacturer is a "seller" for the purposes of the Connecticut statute, it seems unlikely that a duty to warn would arise under these circumstances. Given high levels of publicity given to distracted driving, and Connecticut's expansive distracted driving law - not to mention common sense - app developers could have a strong argument that playing Pokémon Go while operating a motor vehicle or crossing a highway are "obvious" dangers.

In addition, walking or driving while distracted may not even be considered a danger arising from the use of a product. A California court found, in a case involving a failure to warn claim arising out of distracted driving related to use of a GPS system, that the fact that distracted driving may cause an accident is not a danger inherent to the GPS product. Rather, it is a danger that is inherent to driving while distracted at all. Similar reasoning could certainly be used in relation to Pokémon Go: walking into traffic without looking, for example, is dangerous, regardless of whether the pedestrian is playing Pokémon Go. The danger arises not from the product, or even from the use of the product, but from the injured party's inattention.

The Warnings Provided

The game developer in this case tried to preempt any question of a duty to warn by providing proper warnings in the game from the outset. Pokémon Go's gaming interface begins with a warning for users to stay alert during game play. In addition, the Pokémon Go Terms of Service includes the following "Safe Play" disclaimer:

"During game play, please be aware of your surroundings and play safely. You agree that your use of the App and play of the game is at your own risk, and it is your responsibility to maintain such health, liability, hazard, personal injury, medical, life, and other insurance policies as you deem reasonably necessary for any injuries that you may incur while using the Services. . . To the extent permitted by applicable law, Niantic, The Pokémon Company ("TPC"), and TPCI disclaim all liability related to any property damage, personal injury, or death that may occur during your use of our Services, including any claims based on the violation of any applicable law, rule, or regulation or your alleged negligence or other tort liability."

Although there is a warning, the question arises of whether the one provided was sufficient to convey the danger present in the use of this product. Factors to be considered will be whether the warning was placed in proper prominence together with the obviousness of the danger. It is hard to imagine a court or jury finding that a warning presented at the start of game play instructing players to pay attention to their surroundings is not prominent enough, and although the warning does not specifically mention the dangers of walking into traffic or off of a cliff while playing Pokémon Go, it would seem that the dangers of walking or driving while looking at a screen should be properly obvious without a specific warning.

Would a "better"warning prevent injury?

Even if a plaintiff could meet the standards listed above, to recover on a duty to warn theory under Connecticut law, the plaintiff will still have to prove that they would have acted differently if they were made aware of the danger, and thus avoided injury. In a case involving a game like Pokémon Go, a plaintiff alleging that the warning given was inadequate would have to also prove that if an adequate warning had been provided, they would not have been injured - would not have stepped into traffic or off a cliff or driven their car into a tree, as in the examples above.

Under present law, a case based on a failure to warn theory of liability seems unlikely to succeed, but the law in this area is relatively unsettled as it applies to apps, games, and handheld electronics. As the real world provides more examples of AR encroachment, legal theories and potential liabilities may expand. Video game sellers and other providers of AR experiences are wise to proactively address potential liabilities and include warnings like the ones on the Pokémon Go app to help protect them in the event of litigation. Besides, there is still the question of the other possible theory of liability - design defect. Next time, we will analyze whether a design defect claim could prevail against the developers and distributors of video games like Pokémon Go.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2016:/blog//14294.21250172016-07-01T21:38:38Z2016-07-01T21:40:43Z
To prevent layoffs and allow businesses to spring back from economic downturns, the Connecticut Department of Labor's Shared Work program allows workers to be kept on board part-time while the state pays them partial unemployment benefits. Talent is retained until business improves, saving the business recruitment and training costs as well as the systemic challenges of on-boarding a new team. Workers also benefit, receiving a higher income than they would with unemployment benefits alone and exemption from unemployment work-search requirements.

What are the eligibility requirements for the program?

The Shared Work program can be an appealing alternative to layoffs for businesses facing temporary downturns. In order for an organization to qualify for Shared Work:

• Workforce reductions must be planned for units of two or more employees.

• The employees within the unit must be full- or part-time employees, not seasonal workers, and have worked for the company for at least 13 weeks.

• Employees' "fringe benefits," including health insurance, retirement benefits, paid vacation and holidays, and sick leave, must be kept intact, and not eliminated or reduced.

• Planned reductions in hours worked must be between 10 - 60% per employee.

The Shared Work program is not just for businesses that are struggling overall. The Department defines "unit" loosely to include a plant, department, shift, or other definable group containing two or more employees. In larger businesses, this means that even if one part of your business is thriving, Shared Work may be a good option for particular "units" that are struggling due to economic downturn.

Applying For the Program

The Shared Work application is available through the Department of Labor's website, and is relatively straightforward. The Department requests basic information about Affected Unit to which the plan would apply, a checklist to determine program eligibility, and specific information about the employees within the unit. The application will request particulars about the proposed plan, including start and end dates, for a plan duration of up to 26 weeks. In addition, if your employees are covered by a collective bargaining unit or union, the unit's agent or agents will need to sign off on the application before it can be submitted.

Once the application is completed, it will be reviewed by the Labor Commissioner for compliance with the program requirements. The proposed plan will be reviewed within thirty days, and the Commissioner will issue a decision. The Commissioner's decision is final and rejections cannot be appealed. However, if the plan is rejected, the Commissioner will state the reason for the denial, and the business can submit a revised plan.

Implementing a Shared Work Program

If the application is granted, compliance with the plan is important - the Commissioner can revoke the plan after approval for "good cause," and revocation decisions are final. Once the plan is in place, any modifications or deviations must be approved by the Department before being implemented. Additional employees may be added to the plan, or the plan may be otherwise modified upon request, if the Commissioner finds that the requested modification is consistent with the purpose of the original plan. In addition, an application may be made for the initial program to be extended by up to 26 additional weeks.

For more information about Shared Work, and to apply, the Department of Labor's Employer Website includes a comprehensive guide to the program and its regulations.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2016:/blog//14294.21010092016-06-15T19:11:57Z2016-06-15T19:19:58Z
In Connecticut, businesses may have their contracts "undone" and be forced to pay restitution if the contract contains unfair or deceptive terms and provisions. In a recent settlement, Ferrandino & Son, Inc. (F&S), a New York business, agreed to pay damages based on alleged unfair trade practices in a snow removal contract with Connecticut subcontractors. The contract laid out a payment arrangement involving a flat rate for snow removal services and a tiered bonus structure for snow removal amounts above a 30-year "average annual snowfall." The contract signed by each subcontractor included an exhibit listing the snowfall averages that would be used to calculate bonuses, however the express language of the contract required that bonuses be calculated based on 30-year "historic snowfall averages." According to the CT Attorney General (AG)'s office, the actual benchmark used for calculating the bonus structure "was not based on any industry standard or verifiable mathematical calculations of site specific historic snowfall data, and thus was not a valid 30 year snowfall average for that site." The snowfall averages listed in the contract were much higher than actual historic snowfall averages, and as a result, even when snowfall was higher than average, the subcontractors received lower compensation than if historic data had been used to calculate the bonuses.

Even though all parties agreed to the contract's terms with knowledge of the snowfall measurements in the attached exhibit, the AG's office maintained that the contract required the parties to use an objective measure of historic snowfall data instead of the inaccurate values contained in the contract. While the historic snowfall data in question was not confidential data available only to one party, but rather publicly available, verifiable, historic data, the AG's office relied on the allegation that F&S had made assertions that the snowfall data contained in the exhibit was historical and accurate, and that representing the exhibit as historic data was misleading and may constitute an unfair trade practice under Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The parties settled and signed an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, in which F&S agreed to pay restitution to the subcontractors and a civil penalty, as well as to base future compensation on historic snowfall averages.

CUTPA is a broad law that covers a wide range of conduct, and while it is generally discussed in relation to consumers, the law applies to businesses as well. Department of Consumer Protection Commissioner Jonathan A. Harris stated in a press release on this settlement that "businesses in Connecticut must meet the highest ethical and legal standards, whether their customers are consumers or other businesses." There are two key takeaways from what happened here. The first is that claiming that data is historic, scientific, or otherwise factual when it is not based on an industry standard or verifiable mathematical calculations could result in a potential CUTPA violation. This is so even if the data is initially accepted by agreement by all parties, and especially when, as here, compliance with a contract's terms depends on that data. The second more general lesson is the broad scope of business transactions to which CUTPA can be applied, and that business owners should be sensitive to potential CUTPA violations at all stages of business dealings, not only with consumers but also when contracting with other businesses.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2015:/blog//14294.17620202015-01-06T21:55:56Z2015-10-01T09:14:05Z
Connecticut employers may recall discussions about a minimum wage increase to $10.10. However, we have not yet reached that point, though--that will be the number in 2017.

As of January 1, 2015, the Connecticut minimum wage is $9.15, with $5.78 for the restaurant industry. See, http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/wgwkstnd/wage-hour/history.htm . Employers, please make sure your payroll company is aware of this change and that you accounted for it in processing last week. If not, you could be liable to your employees for multiple damages and attorneys' fees. Employers in the restaurant industry should also ensure that tips + $5.78 equals $9.15.

All employers should consider the mid-week effect on overtime pay. You might be liable for time and a half at the increased rate.

In thinking about minimum wage and overtime changes, now is the perfect opportunity to review your payroll practices:

Are you keeping proper time records?

Are you paying weekly, unless exempt?

Are you sure the non-exempt employees are still non-exempt based on job duties?

Are you sure your independent contractors are truly independent contractors?

Do you have any unpaid interns who might actually be owed minimum wage?

Are your other policies and procedures up to date?

Any employer, no matter the size, can face wage and hour liability, and even if you have EPL Insurance, you might not be covered. It is always best to consult with experienced counsel regarding these issues.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2014:/blog//14294.17620192014-10-31T17:04:47Z2015-10-01T09:14:04Z
Passwords and PINs require ever more complexity and become difficult to recall. As a result, many people take actions that could give rise to a data security concern: they write them down on a paper near their computer. Thus, there has been a call from many to switch to biometric data, e.g., fingerprints. Apple iPhones, for example, have the capacity to let one log in without entering a PIN, by using a fingerprint, and then that fingerprint can also authenticate apps. [There is a caveat that the PIN must be entered the first time after the phone is restarted.]

Earlier this month, the White House Cybersecurity Czar, Michael Daniel, indicated that the Administration is looking to facilitate the switch to biometrics. Mr. Daniel expressed, though, a concern that Apple encryption by default posed a barrier for law enforcement. His concern, however, might not be well founded.

A Virginia Circuit Court judge has ruled that a warrant could issue to compel a suspect to provide his/her fingerprint to law enforcement to unlock a device. This is distinct from asking for a PIN or Password, which would constitute testimony and run afoul of the 5th Amendment. Biometrics are non-testimonial, the judge ruled.

Thus, rather than securing data, biometrics could, to those entities concerned with governmental intrusion at least, result in exposing data. Companies with BYOD policies and those utilizing such technologies should consider the legal implications of changing to biometrics.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2014:/blog//14294.17620182014-10-08T12:57:07Z2015-10-01T09:14:04Z
On October 6, 2014, the NLRB Region 1 Director issued a decision in a matter involving employees of Lawrence & Memorial Hospital and Lawrence & Memorial Medical Group in New London, Connecticut. See 01-RC-134298. AFT Connecticut had been seeking to add a group of LPNs and a group of Medical Assistants employed at the nearby L+M Medical Office Building to exiting bargaining units at the hospital. The Regional Director found that there were sufficient distinctions, including separate human resources departments, different scheduling requirements, separate supervision and little overlap to warrant these groups joining the hospital units. This is notwithstanding the fact that certain functions, such as payroll administration, were shared or that both entities have a common owner.

The Regional Director did find that the LPNs and MAs could form a separate unit at the Medical Office Building without extending to the other facilities operated by the medical group. Geographic separation, immediate supervision, and little interchange were found to demonstrate that LMMG was not so substantially integrated to negate the MOB's separate identity. The Regional Director, in light of his decision, opted not to rule on whether the entities were joint employers.

This decision demonstrates that determination of who should be in what unit and who constitutes an employer remains murky and fact specific. The attorneys at Raymond Law Group can advise and represent you should you find yourself in the midst of a representation dispute.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2014:/blog//14294.17620172014-07-11T16:25:01Z2015-10-01T09:14:04Z
Among the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is Rule 12(b)(5) which permits a defendant to file a motion to dismiss a case for insufficient service of process. Most states have a similar rule for their own courts.

This rule arises from Constitutional requirements of due process. To commence a lawsuit and change the legal position of parties, due process requires that proper notice be given. This is a fundamental proposition and failure to serve notice violates due process. Even actual notice of a lawuit may not suffice if service of process requirements have not been met. Typically, this involves service by a sheriff, constable, marshal or other person duly appointed to serve process, who then makes a proper affidavit of service.

Recently, a case has become notorious because the Plaintiff's attorney opted to name the Tor Project as a defendant simply because an offending website used Tor. Tor is a system by which anonymous internet use is facilitated; it can be used for good and for ill. The Tor Project likely enjoys complete immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, I observed another flaw.

The chief defendant, a website, has faced litigation from this attorney before. As an obvious joke, they listed a colleague of his as the attorney to whom complaints should be addressed. Yet, the Plaintiff's attorney chose to attempt to effect service on the defendant website at his colleague's office. I observed that due process would not be met and the service defective. Moreover, it might constitute a fraud on the court since the attorney apparently knowingly attested to the court that service upon the colleague would be good service.

Techdirt, which is an online magazine addressing interesting technological developments, cited to my comments approvingly in a follow-up piece. Even if the purpose of the litigation is good, one should not violate a defendant's right to due process to accomplish those ends.

If you have been sued, consult immediately with an attorney. Constitutional requirements are not technicalities and we may be able to help you vindicate your due process rights.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013:/blog//14294.17659682013-08-28T11:33:54Z2015-10-05T00:59:23Z
Connecticut employers should take note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 9, 2013, issued a ruling upholding a class-action waiver in an employment agreement. In the case in questions, Sunderland v. Ernst & Young, LLP, the employee was making a claim for unpaid overtime wages, asserting that the employer improperly classified her as "exempt" for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court denied the employer's effort to compel individual arbitration, which had been agreed to by the employee in her original hiring. While on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013). That decision compelled the Second Circuit to reverse the District Court's decision.]]>
Ms. Sunderland was claiming a loss of only approximately $2,000. She asserted that forcing individual arbitration would be untenable, precluding her from effectively vindicating her claim, because it would cost $200,000 to prove her case, in attorneys' fees and expert witness expenses. Pursuant to the American Express decision, the Second Circuit found that there was no Congressional bar to individualized arbitration and that the fees for the arbitration proceeding (as opposed to attorney and expert fees) were not too high. Thus, the employer was entitled to have the matter heard individually. Even though the employer won this issue, it should take caution: if Ms. Sunderland wins at arbitration, she could win attorney fees per the fee-shifting provision of the FLSA. Other employees may file their own claims for arbitration, and rather than pay $200,000 in attorneys' fees once, the employer may wind up having to pay attorneys' fees for each employee. A six-figure case could morph into a seven-figure exposure; collective action, on the other hand, provides for an all-in-one resolution. Employers should consult with experienced counsel to determine the best approach.

The Second Circuit, in footnote 8, addressed an interesting legal question. In 2012, the NLRB issued a ruling In re: D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB. No. 144 (Jan. 3, 2012), in which the Labor Board effectively stated that class action waivers inherently violated an employee's right to engage in concerted action regarding the terms and conditions of employment, per Section 7 of the NLRA. The Second Circuit chose to ignore that decision, as it felt it was deciding a case pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, over which the NLRB has no authority, especially as the NLRA does not expressly countermand class waivers in arbitration.

Employers and employees are faced with complex issues involving federal and state employment rights, labor law, class actions, and alternative dispute resolution. Given the increasing complexity of the legal landscape, they should consult with experienced counsel .

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013:/blog//14294.17659672013-08-08T00:33:39Z2015-10-05T00:59:23Z
The attorneys for Macy's Inc. and J.C. Penney Co. made their final arguments recently in their contract dispute over rights to Martha Stewart Living merchandise. The parties reconvened after the last of many breaks in the trial that opened in February. While scheduling issues caused most of the delays, the court halted the proceedings at one point -- in March -- so that the retailers could attempt to mediate the matter.

From the tone of the testimony and the behind-the-scenes drama at Penney, though, mediation looked like a long shot to analysts tracking the suit. The interference with contract claim has not only drained Penney's coffers but it has kept the retailer from moving forward with a major in-store merchandising shift, specifically, opening Martha Stewart Living boutiques within the department stores.

]]>
The idea seems to have sprung from Penney's former CEO, who was also a personal friend of Stewart. He contacted Stewart in December 2011, long after her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, had entered into a contract with Macy's to sell MSL-branded home goods. They struck a deal. When it became public, Macy's sued.

In their closing arguments, attorneys for the retailers (neither Stewart nor her company were part of the lawsuit) reviewed their key points. For Macy's, the deal was a deliberate attempt to undermine Macy's market share. Penney strong-armed Stewart into accepting a deal that clearly ran contrary to her contract with Macy's.

For its part, Penney -- and Stewart, who was a key witness but not a party to the litigation -- has maintained that the contract allowed Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia to establish Martha Stewart Living stores that marketed the same items sold by Macy's. The contract did not, however, specify that the stores had to be free-standing shops; by selling the goods in Martha Stewart Living boutiques within their stores, Penney was not violating the Macy's contract.

Penney has been selling Martha Stewart Living goods since May, but the merchandise do not carry the MSL brand. One of the decisions before the court now is whether those merchandise, now sold under the "JCP Everyday" banner, also violate the Macy's contract.

The court told the parties to expect a decision soon -- but not too soon.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013:/blog//14294.17659662013-08-04T01:42:29Z2015-10-05T00:59:23Z
A large construction project on a university campus fell behind and cost more to complete because of the actions of a Connecticut subcontractor, a general contracting company claims in recent court filings. The general contractor is suing the Connecticut company for breach of contract and negligence.

The subcontractor cost the project $1.1 million in a number of ways, the complaint asserts. For example, the subcontractor twice caused major property damage, the plaintiff says. The subcontractor's workers dropped one steel column from an upper floor in August 2012 and another in November 2012. While no one was injured, the first incident resulted in damage to a trailer and the second in damage to the sidewalk. Both incidents were indicative of the subcontractor's negligence and failure to follow industry practices, the plaintiff asserts.

]]>
Construction accidents generally result in a shutdown of the entire site while safety inspectors investigate. That happened here, the plaintiff says, and the shutdown cost the project both time and money. The immediate loss to the plaintiff is estimated to be more than $220,000.

The actions of the subcontractor caused cost overruns to the project in general as well, the plaintiff says. The plaintiff's contract with the property owner included two provisions: First, the contract stipulated a maximum price for the project. Any overruns would be absorbed by the plaintiff. Second, if the project came in under the maximum, the plaintiff and the property owner would split the savings.

The overruns, then, meant that the plaintiffs had to pay the overage and lost the opportunity to share in the savings.

The complaint asks for all damages, interest and attorney's fees as well as any other relief the court deems appropriate.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013:/blog//14294.17659652013-07-27T18:53:32Z2015-10-05T00:59:23Z
With the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey's plans to host more big cruise ships at its Bayonne facility, Connecticut residents will be just a short drive away from luxury cruises to exotic locations. That is, of course, if the prospective vacationers can get past the cruise industry's reputation for underplaying the number of crimes and suspicious mishaps that occur aboard their floating hotels.

The January 2012 Costa Concordia disaster sparked renewed interest from the public and Congress in cruise ship safety. A Senate bill would rquire that cruise lines report all crime data to the Department of Transportation; it would also make the department responsible for consumer protection activities related to cruises.

]]>
Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard maintains a website devoted to criminal allegations made on U.S. cruises. The problem, according to a Royal Caribbean Ltd. executive, is that the information on the site is limited to investigations completed by the FBI. An industry expert told a Senate panel that the FBI may not be aware of all the crimes and may not share information with the public about all of the investigations.

Passengers, the expert continued, have a right to know the risks involved with cruising. There should be enough information available that consumers can compare cruise lines and, whenever possible, ships. One senator noted that the law must be changed because the cruise industry "seems to refuse to take action on its own."

But Royal Caribbean, Carnival Corp. and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. have pledged to publish more complete data about crimes on their ships. While the move may appear to be an attempt to head off legislation that will dictate what information is required and to whom it is reported, it could also be a smart business move.

Cruise lines are more and more the targets of lawsuits from passengers who have had their trips interrupted by equipment mishaps or who have been injured on board. As every business knows, litigation can be costly and time-consuming -- a valid claim costs as much to defend as a nuisance lawsuit does.

By making crime reports public, the companies could build up good will and enhance their reputations as safety-conscious businesses. Sharing the information voluntarily is also in keeping with the country's increasing focus on transparency in business operations.

What is not clear is whether the information will be limited to U.S. operations. The Costa Concordia was part of Carnival's Italian subsidiary's fleet.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013:/blog//14294.17659642013-07-18T14:20:02Z2015-10-05T00:59:23Z
When a Connecticut woman was laid off from her full-time job, she was given severance pay but needed more. She decided to start her own small business, a line of purses and accessories called Thirty-One Gifts. Expecting this side project to be a part-time gig, she was surprised when the business took off. As more and more work came in, it grew increasingly difficult to continue working out of her home, where her family also lived. She needed a space of her own.

The entrepreneur realized that she was probably not alone. Many women, she thought, were probably in her same position, trying to run a business from their homes while juggling kids, laundry and other tasks. That's when she came up with the idea to open a workspace where women could rent a desk for a few hours or more to focus on work without the distractions that a home can bring.

]]>
Eventually she opened the Center for Collaborative Women in Monroe. Today, about 300 women rent space regularly. Women can pay as little as $31 a month to use a shared workspace, or spend more to have their own desk. In addition to providing a place to focus on work, the center also provides classes that anyone can take.

Entrepreneurs like this woman possess unique sets of skills and characteristics that help better our communities. When starting a business, however, it is important to make sure all of the details are taken care of. Properly labeling your business, making sure contracts are secure and determining a good business plan can help ensure that entrepreneurs succeed.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013:/blog//14294.17620162013-07-16T15:34:20Z2015-10-01T09:14:04Z
A case filed in the U.S. District Court in Tennessee illustrates the growing liability risks associated with cyber bullying. The parents of a middle school boy have filed a complaint against the Williamson County Board of Education and thirty-one of their son's classmates.

The plaintiff was born in Ethiopia and was adopted in 2010 which is when he enrolled at Grassland Middle School. By 2012 a number of students allegedly engaged in a pattern of cyber bullying that included racist and profane statements, photographs and a racist death threat.

The Complaint alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Bullying Prevention Act. Tennessee, along with several other states, has directly addressed the problem of cyber bullying. Children and teenagers today spend large amounts of time on cell phones, instant messaging, Facebook and other online activities. It is estimated that almost half of American teens have experienced some form of cyber bullying.

The Tennessee statute defines cyber bullying as bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Examples may include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites or fake profiles. The statute also requires that school districts develop a policy prohibiting cyber bullying along with implementing procedures for the prompt investigation and remedial action as a consequence for a person found to have committed an act of cyber bullying.

In the Mihnovich case, the plaintiff was harassed via text messages with racial and profane statements by thirty-one of his classmates. A public Facebook page was created as a forum for the students to make racist comments about the plaintiff. In response, the plaintiff's parents contacted the school to discuss what the school should do to protect the plaintiff. Allegedly the school advised the parents and subsequently their attorney, through a letter that is annexed to the Complaint, that the school system was not required to take any action.

The school took the position that there was no proof that the actions occurred during school hours. However, the plaintiffs allege the school had an affirmative duty to investigate and take disciplinary action against the perpetrators of hate speech regardless of where the speech originated because it was reasonably foreseeable that such hate speech would interfere with the plaintiff's education, opportunities and performance.

As the Tennessee statute demonstrates, the law has caught up with cyber bullying. Connecticut also has a law prohibiting cyber bullying as well as procedures in place for schools to develop and implement a policy to address the existence of bullying in its schools. In Mihnovich, the plaintiff is seeking $1.1 million in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages. Access to smartphones, Facebook and other internet sites is only going to increase and parents and schools should not ignore the potential legal liability posed by cyber bullying.

]]>
tag:www.raymondlawgroup.com,2013:/blog//14294.17659632013-07-12T13:12:00Z2015-10-05T00:59:23Z
There are some advantages to not having a professional football team in town. For example, Hartford does not have to worry about hosting the Super Bowl. Local football fans can drive to any one of a number of East Coast venues, enjoy the game, shout themselves hoarse, and come back home to a city that has not been ravaged by tailgate parties and over-enthusiastic celebrants.

The National Football League may be wondering if the 2011 Super Bowl game was worth the trouble. Litigation concerning a seating screw-up has been moving ahead slowly in federal court, and the league now finds itself the target of more than 1,000 individual lawsuits instead of one big one.

]]>
The court has denied the plaintiffs' request for a class action, and plaintiffs' attorneys are saying that they will continue to press their claims one by one. Potentially, that means 1,250 lawsuits.

The plaintiffs were attendees whose tickets assigned them to seats that, mere hours before the game, authorities determined to be unsafe. About two-thirds of these fans were moved to different seats, some of which had obstructed views. The rest of the group watched the game from standing-room areas.

They sued both the NFL and the host team for damages and applied to be certified as a class action. The court dismissed the team early on, ruling that the tickets were contracts between the NFL and the attendees. Now, the idea of a class action is dead.

The judge said that the common issues did not sufficiently outweigh the individual concerns. For instance, she said, there was no uniform formula that the court could apply to determine damages, because each original and reassigned seat was different, and each attendee incurred different expenses for the event. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits.

So the league could be defending these cases for years to come -- until, even, Hartford has its own franchise and its own state-of-the-art stadium.